It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'm about one of the biggest critics of my Government as you'll find however people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.
So justifying UK actions as being for their benefit and slamming the US when it come to doing the same is hypocrisy IMO.
No actual comment on the comment? What about France? And the other governments who have participated in if not outright executed on their own or even invented the kinds of activities being discussed here?
Originally posted by searching4truth
The telegraph, with supporting documentation, is asserting that the US is behind the recent protests in Egypt and plotting to instill another more democratic government in its place.
This being true, clearly Mubarak has out reigned his usefulness, but how?
The front runner in the media seems to be Mr. Mohammed Elbaradei. Will he be the new puppet?
If this is true, it is outrageous and also draws into question all the other mideast protests and overthrows over the past few weeks.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Originally posted by dukeofjive
I dont get why the american government, would let a key allie in a very islamic country, that borders israel, that dosent let religious parties run and win elections to change there, to an islamic governement.
Seriously why, now if he really leaves, you guys think theres gonna be a democracy lol, the people are fed up, and the religious fanatics will take over, so more countries anti the west,
And you think Israel with let anything escalate, come on, there trigger happy and they own nukes.
This is not a good scenario for the middle east, Now e have tunisia, algeria , egypt, sudan, jordan,where will it stop.
Not good at all for the Western powers
Originally posted by Vicky32
Actually, reflecting on what I have heard on the radio this morning, I realise this thread has it backwards. Mubarak is an American creature - they support him, hence Hilary Clinton's dilemma. The USA claims to be in support of democratic reform - yet as Mubarak supports Israel and the USA, what can they do?
Al Jazeera and its American network "partners" seemed to be channeling Jimmy Carter on the Sunday morning chat shows. Christiane Amanpour on ABC spoke of a "popular uprising" and freedom. Martha Raddatz spoke of "human rights and democracy." Tom Friedman on NBC courted the "moderate Muslim center." Possibly worst of all was the BBC's Katty Kay suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood be accommodated in any post-Mubarak government.
The hagiographic network coverage of the Egyptian revolt ignores every recent political precedent in the near East; the Iran revolt gave birth to the first Shia theocracy, and a recent election elevated terrorist Hezb'allah in Lebanon. The electoral victory of fundamentalism in Algeria in 1991 had to be undone by the Army. An election also brought terrorist Hamas to power in Palestine. And now Tunisia and Egypt are tottering towards the abyss.
Electoral alternatives to the status quo in the Arab League are not likely to be enlightened or democratic. The Irish, who know more than a little about the debits and credits of revolution, like to say that the "devil you know is better than the devil you don't." Mubarak may be a flawed ally, but other options are monstrous. Not only is Egypt a linchpin for Middle East stability, but it, like Turkey until recently, has been a bulwark against the worst excesses of Islamism. If Egypt falls to Islam's worst, the outlook for Israel and the rest of the Muslim world is bleak indeed.